Appeal No. 95-3876
Application 08/222,009
described in the prior art relied on in the rejection, and
shall explain how such limitations render the claimed subject
matter unobvious over the prior art."). Cf. In re Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court to examine
the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant,
looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.");
In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ 247, 254 (CCPA
1967) ("This court has uniformly followed the sound rule that
an issue raised below which is not argued in this court, even
if it has been properly brought here by a reason of appeal, is
regarded as abandoned and will not be considered. It is our
function as a court to decide disputed issues, not to create
them.").
Second, I disagree with APJ Torczon's construction
of the control means limitation under § 112, sixth paragraph,
to include transistors Q3 and Q6 because I believe it is
inconsistent with the principles that claims are given their
broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution in the
PTO and that limitations are not to be read into the claims.
In my opinion, § 112, sixth paragraph, requires that an
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007